Random Battle Balance

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by Ravindau

I mean, really, would any human player want to be the delaying/defending side in a random default game? I rest my case.

I played a generated game with me defending as ANZAC vs Germany.

Aussies 870 battle points vs Germany XXX.
Visability: 20
Number of turns: 29
Location: Tobruk
Map size: 30x30
Autodeployed VHs.

I bought two rifle companies, one HMG platoon and one AT-gun platoon, a carrier section one single captured Italian mortar, one single captured Italian 20mm Breda AA gun.

The German auto-picked force included about a company of tanks and half tracks, some mortars and infantry guns and a 10,5cm battery and about two companies worth of infantry.

Positioned one company to defend and one to counterattack into the flank. Counterattack started on turn 11. Enemy on map artillery overrun by turn 20. Game ends. Aussie casualties 90 while the German losses amount to nearly the whole force.

(I did not use Z-fire).

I don't see any problem with delaying (or defending) games - the basic setup gives you a fair chance. Veteran players will probably always do well vs the AI. If you want to make it harder or easier you can...

[DRG]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I played a generated game with me defending as ANZAC vs Germany.

Aussies 870 battle points vs Germany XXX.
Visability: 20
Number of turns: 29
Location: Tobruk
Map size: 30x30
Autodeployed VHs.

I bought two rifle companies, one HMG platoon and one AT-gun platoon, a carrier section one single captured Italian mortar, one single captured Italian 20mm Breda AA gun.

The German auto-picked force included about a company of tanks and half tracks, some mortars and infantry guns and a 10,5cm battery and about two companies worth of infantry.

Positioned one company to defend and one to counterattack into the flank. Counterattack started on turn 11. Enemy on map artillery overrun by turn 20. Game ends. Aussie casualties 90 while the German losses amount to nearly the whole force.

(I did not use Z-fire).

I don't see any problem with delaying (or defending) games - the basic setup gives you a fair chance. Veteran players will probably always do well vs the AI. If you want to make it harder or easier you can...

The problems here is you bought what you ( and we.....) considered a balance combined arms force and it's looking like he overwhelmed the defenders with infantry..a reverse "AI horde" that you get when you fight a first world force in SPMBT against something like the VC or Mujahadeen. A human player would hammer something like that down with arty but on a 30x30 map there really isn't enough time for the AI to do that before they are in it's lap.

Try your test again with the same ANZAC force but with a very infantry heavy attack force.

Best defence against something like that is ample mortar support and HMG's ( and snipers ).....not trying to kill so much as disable the attack by keeping them pinned so they cannot get close and overwhelm you with their own suppressive rifle fire

But the terrain given by the map generation program is critical in a map that size and there can be more variables on a small map....postage stamps as Andy says....... I set up a map usually with a small hamlet at a crossroads then fight it out as a meeter with maybe 700 points...that gets you a couple of coys and a tank or two

Don

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by DRG

Try your test again with the same ANZAC force but with a very infantry heavy attack force.

I tried it again. Same setup with basically the same ANZAC force - two rifle companies, HMG platoon, carrier section, and one former Italian mortar unit - however I got rid of the AA gun and got some LMG teams and a sniper instead.

Autogenerated map, VH locations and turns (now 35 turns).


Bought the German forces myself. One leg rifle battalion (three rifle companies, heavy company), one light tank section, one CS tank section, engineer platoon, one AT gun platoon, scouts a LMG team, and one 10,5cm battery.

It took more time to grind down the enemy but it was certianly doable. Concentrated on both flanks and let the HMGs cover the middle. Made an effort to set up kill zones where I could expect the AI to move units. Counterattack at turn 25. Lost 54 troops and both carriers. Enemy losses amounted to the entire battalion force save for one at gun and the HQ unit.

The defend/delay game is not impossible vs the AI. It would have been very hard against an experienced human opponent though with this small size map...

[DRG]

Originally Posted by wulfir

I tried it again. Same setup with basically the same ANZAC force - two rifle companies, HMG platoon, carrier section, and one former Italian mortar unit - however I got rid of the AA gun and got some LMG teams and a sniper instead.

Autogenerated map, VH locations and turns (now 35 turns).


Bought the German forces myself. One leg rifle battalion (three rifle companies, heavy company), one light tank section, one CS tank section, engineer platoon, one AT gun platoon, scouts a LMG team, and one 10,5cm battery.ze map...

Now get rid of the CS tank section the light tank section and the ATG plt and the 10.5 battery and buy more infantry and you'll see what he's been doing

[Mobhack]

It works as a human against the AI, as infantry blobs are amazingly easy for a human to deal with.

The AI buys for a defence against combined arms - which is what end users tend to use. Its points spent on AT guns, tank destroyers, AAA and ATGM (if MBT) are thus nerfed if you "game" the system with a horde of grunts. And the AI does not know about ammo resupply trucks, either. Nor is it particularly good about plotting arty, and especially on repeating arty on a spot already targeted - it'll happily move a plot somewhere else on a full 2.0 delay to fall, rather than re-plot with an 0.1 delay.

A human defence against a human wave would have (almost) all troops up front, with plenty of MG teams in the second line. If you know it is going to be a horde then there will be no tanks to worry about, and cheap scout cars with turreted MG and 120 rounds carried are king of the battlefield. Plus plenty of on-map mortar elements backed up by ammo trucks.

The key to stopping a human wave is to suppress and rout their front line with a belt of area fire from arty and mortars, with the HMG teams adding to the mayhem. The AI, or a human player that simply tries to add second lines to the first line will find those being suppressed and routed away same as the first line. The armoured cars (or little light tanks with a 20mm - has a blast effect zone) dont get close enough for AT rifles or infantry assaults to effect them, and provide a mobile fire base acting behind the defence line. None of which the AI is capable of, as it is baked in for it to sit passively WW1 style.

The only prerequisite of this is that you need a decent field of fire out front so he does not get too close - it only needs to be 2-3oo yards of open zone. In a deep jungle map then the machine guns lose thier range advantage, and the armoured cars are a bit nerfed too. But as the defender you can figure out the approach lines and seed them with final defence fire points (gold spots) right in front of your defence line for accurate close-in fires. Any core MG teams can then look after open points on the line (if any). In a close jungle or wood map like that, then I would consider double-stacking elements as well, and if its a defend - put those 1 hex behind the rest at the start before moving them up later (gives trenches in the hex behind for the front line to retreat into).

And that is how I fight Japanese when playing nationalist China.

But by attacking with a horde of cheap infantry, on a postage stamp sized map then you are simply playing to the weakness of the AI.

If you want it harder then as said before, editing the turn count downwards will make you need to "press on". As would turning on timed objective hexes (if you want to leave it at the longer time). Giving the human player more time is always bad for the AI since it will simply sit there allowing you to deal with individual pockets of resistance and sweep them up.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

It works as a human against the AI, as infantry blobs are amazingly easy for a human to deal with.

The AI buys for a defence against combined arms - which is what end users tend to use. Its points spent on AT guns, tank destroyers, AAA and ATGM (if MBT) are thus nerfed if you "game" the system with a horde of grunts. And the AI does not know about ammo resupply trucks, either. Nor is it particularly good about plotting arty, and especially on repeating arty on a spot already targeted - it'll happily move a plot somewhere else on a full 2.0 delay to fall, rather than re-plot with an 0.1 delay.

A human defence against a human wave would have (almost) all troops up front, with plenty of MG teams in the second line. If you know it is going to be a horde then there will be no tanks to worry about, and cheap scout cars with turreted MG and 120 rounds carried are king of the battlefield. Plus plenty of on-map mortar elements backed up by ammo trucks.

The key to stopping a human wave is to suppress and rout their front line with a belt of area fire from arty and mortars, with the HMG teams adding to the mayhem. The AI, or a human player that simply tries to add second lines to the first line will find those being suppressed and routed away same as the first line. The armoured cars (or little light tanks with a 20mm - has a blast effect zone) dont get close enough for AT rifles or infantry assaults to effect them, and provide a mobile fire base acting behind the defence line. None of which the AI is capable of, as it is baked in for it to sit passively WW1 style.

The only prerequisite of this is that you need a decent field of fire out front so he does not get too close - it only needs to be 2-3oo yards of open zone. In a deep jungle map then the machine guns lose thier range advantage, and the armoured cars are a bit nerfed too. But as the defender you can figure out the approach lines and seed them with final defence fire points (gold spots) right in front of your defence line for accurate close-in fires. Any core MG teams can then look after open points on the line (if any). In a close jungle or wood map like that, then I would consider double-stacking elements as well, and if its a defend - put those 1 hex behind the rest at the start before moving them up later (gives trenches in the hex behind for the front line to retreat into).

And that is how I fight Japanese when playing nationalist China.

But by attacking with a horde of cheap infantry, on a postage stamp sized map then you are simply playing to the weakness of the AI.

If you want it harder then as said before, editing the turn count downwards will make you need to "press on". As would turning on timed objective hexes (if you want to leave it at the longer time). Giving the human player more time is always bad for the AI since it will simply sit there allowing you to deal with individual pockets of resistance and sweep them up.

Brilliant post, and you got me halfway convinced.

Since there is necessarily an amount of scissors/stone/paper to it, the AI buying routines cannot cover every possible attacker force structure, agreed.

But a human can defend against the forces the AI will likely use against him, again agreed.

And for attacking, if I want to use default settings, I can throw a bone to the AI and buy a force that is more to its expectations, again agreed.

Finally, to come up with an argument of my own along your line of thinking, I can set the AI defence to Human Buy and buy for the AI the forces that I think the AI *should* use against me.

Two things, however:

The postage stamp maps: Everybody thinks I use them to hurt the AI. Not at all. I use them because I think larger maps make for an unrealistically low force concentration (except in the Western Desert and some places East Front, perhaps).

Second, I still think everything else equal there is a problem with the economy of non-ME games. This will need a post of its own, though.

[Imp]

Just thought I would chime in, your wrong about defend delay engagements they normally result in the best ratio of enemy to friendly losses (there are lots of them) & are easy to win.
Setup is very important if you want an easy life in the battle.
Your infantry are your eyes & a last ditch screening effort or your tank killers if your tanks are not up to the job.
Artillery MG/GL & your APCs should break up & or stop an attack before your squads are threatened. Squads just deal with the odd guy that makes it past the engagement line.
Judging when its "safe" for the APCs to assist is probably one of your major decisions & you will probably lose a few.
Normally its not to difficult though on occasion the AI can make superb use of smoke to ruin your plans.
The biggest headache is if your armour is outclassed (as in not effective at range) and there is a lack of terrain suitable to allow there deployment effectively.

[Ravindau]

Originally Posted by Imp

Just thought I would chime in, your wrong about defend delay engagements they normally result in the best ratio of enemy to friendly losses (there are lots of them) & are easy to win.
Setup is very important if you want an easy life in the battle.
Your infantry are your eyes & a last ditch screening effort or your tank killers if your tanks are not up to the job.
Artillery MG/GL & your APCs should break up & or stop an attack before your squads are threatened. Squads just deal with the odd guy that makes it past the engagement line.

You are sure you are following the discussion? I am talking about a game where the attacker has 2.000 pts or less.

This means I have 1.000 pts in a Delay, at the most. My point is precisely that I can´t afford Artillery/Tanks.

[Ravindau]

Sorry for the DP. I pressed the Edit button, but got a reply instead. Edit button doesn´t work for me at all. Is it the forum or my browser?

[scorpio_rocks]

if you are using Firefox you may need to hit the edit button a couple of times to get it to work (it is forum)